About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17
, but to me, you takes the low hacking fruit first. it's the pentagon. and, you know, there was a time when i was a conservative, and i thought if you want to cut the pentagon budget, you must be some kind of come -- comey that hates america. the pentagon in the department of defense and the only department not subject to audit, that doesn't mean they fail the awe cut or look at all the things they found. they're not subject to audit. what we've been finding figuring out is piece by piece is that for example, since 9/11 in the nine years after 9/11, the pentagon budget went up. the increase in the pentagon budget was $2 trillion. $1 trillion went to the war, the other trillion nobody knows where it went to because the air force has been scaled back, the navy has been scaled back, the army increased margely, but it it's budget was vastly increased. where did the money go? and i think this is a crisis that we're enduring that is going have to require both liberals and conservative to rethink re-examine some of the sacred cows and say we can't afford to say this is off the table for cuts. that's
the pentagon budget was basically doubled in the last decade, and in doubling we have lost the ability to prioritize. to make hard decisions, to do tough analyses, to make trades. we also need a review of our defense strategy that makes sure that we are preparing for the threats and risks of the 21st century, not those of the past. the foundation has funded two efforts along these lines to help advance the best ideas for improving our defense strategy. earlier this year we funded a project by the stimson center which brought together 15 defense experts to examine our strategic defense priorities in some detail and how they should be reformed. today we announce the new coalition for fiscal and national security. the coalition, chaired by admiral mullen, includes senior national security defense and economic officials from both republican and democratic administrations stretching back to more than 30 years as well as leaders from the congress including some very distinguished gentlemen here today. all have served our nation with distinction, and they are joining together now to say very
. to quote admiral mike mullen again, the pentagon budget was doubled in the last decade. and we have lost the ability to prioritize. to make our decisions and to do tough analysis. we also need a review of our defense strategy to make sure that we are preparing for the threats and risks of the 21st century, not those of the past. the foundation has funded two efforts along these lines to help advance the best ideas of improving our strategies. earlier this year, we funded a project by the stimson center, which brought together 15 defense experts to examine our strategic defense priorities in some detail and how they should be reformed. today, we announced a new coalition for fiscal and national security. the coalition chaired by admiral mike mullen in regards to defense of both republican and democratic administrations, stretching back more than 30 years, as well as leaders to the congress including the very distinguished gentleman here today. all that served our nation, and they are joining together now to say very clearly that our leaders must find solutions for the long-term fiscal cha
, the even say the pentagon or the size of the federal debt, like if you're the biggest debtor in the world take issued certain power. are you optimistic that these can be really reversed, like 30 seconds? >> i'm very optimistic about america's future. i think we have to approach the future with confidence. we have to get our house right at home but we have to be prepared to engage with confidence abroad. we still are that shining a light on the hill that people look to. they are disappointed when we don't deliver. we are disappointed when we'd don't deliver. i think we can both at home and abroad find a way. it's not going to be simple. our government takes longer to get things done and the real economy would like. we've got to intersect but at the end of the day i'm optimistic that we can move forward. >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] >> i'm like doctor doom, i come on stage. the eternal foot man. >> if you missed any of the previous program you can see it in its entirety at the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. we are live at the newseum here in washington for remarks fr
e-mail or turned over to his pentagon and yet, not suspected of any crime. i think that travels a lot of people. >> host: agent motyka. >> guest: yes, several issues there. as mr. nojeim points out in the above pointed out the update for epca has been there for some time and has worked on it for some time. whether the general petraeus situation has sharpened the focus of the leave to others to decide. i will point out although i don't have direct knowledge of that particular investigation, i would suggest any evidence obtained with it gained through a search warrant and not through any type of surveillance. >> host: agent trained to, how with the new changes proposed, how would that change this case? >> guest: well, you probably would not have changed the case either way. when prosecutors see a case of the utmost sensitivity, which they certainly would've seen here, they would've proceeded with caution by using a search warrant to obtain the data and probably having lived in italy for nondisclosure of the investigation until such time as it was complete. so based on the tools av
have no evidence that the iranian claims you cite are true. i'd refer you to the pentagon's comments this morning about the type of uav, but, again, no evidence that the claims are true. >> how do you view, though, the fact they have shot some drone -- >> again, we have no evidence to hear the claims are true. i'm not going to comment on something about which we have no evidence in its truthfulness. yes? >> jay, thanks. i want to go back to what the president asked in the interview with bloomberg. during the negotiations with speaker boehner, a year ago, he was willing to consider increasing the eligibility age for medicare recipients and slowing benefits for entitlements, and he said he was willing to look at anything that strengthens our system. can you clarify, are those prams that could strengthen the system, is that what he was signaling? >> i will say a couple things that build on and echo what the president said today and in the past. we put forward substantial and specific savings in entitlement programs. both health care entightmentments, and, you know, non-health care manda
for the pentagon and fluctuations in global energy prices can have dramatic, dramatic effects on defense spending. for every $10 increase in a barrel of oil it costs the american military annually an extra $1.3 billion. recognizing the potential instability that d.o.d.'s current energy needs can cause, military experts from across the various branches of the armed services have begun looking at ways to cut energy use and find energy alternative. now, i continued to hear all of this discussion about how this is somehow a green agenda and it's a suber havesive plot and it's being forced on a resistant president. and i just want to take a minute or two, mr. president, and say i don't think anything could be further from the truth and just wanted to describe for a moment why i feel that way. first, those who oppose defense energy initiatives often argue in today's fiscal environment, the country can't afford to waste money on energy programs when it's necessary to provide for our nation's security. i don't believe, mr. president, it is an either/or proposition, because my view is that an investment i
at the pentagon before heading back to the baltimore region alternating working in private practice and working in the state's attorney general's office, while continuing to serve as an active duty u.s. army j.a.g. corps officer with occasional stints in the pentagon. in 1997, judge grimm was elected a magistrate judge by the judges of the u.s. district court for the district of maryland and in 2006 became the chief u.s. magistrate judge in baltimore. in 2009, chief justice john roberts appointed judge grimm to serve as a member of the advisory committee for the federal rules of civil procedure, and in 2010, he was designated as chair of the civil rules committee discovery subcommittee. i mention that because it's evident from the chief judge's appointment that judge grimm is a nationally recognized expert on cutting edge issues of law and technology. he has written numerous authoritative opinions, books and articles on the subject of evidence, civil procedure and trial advocacy. he also continues to inspire the next generation of lawyers by teaching classes at both of our law schools, and on s
transfer responsibilities that are not truly the defense of the country out of the pentagon and consolidate programs and save a significant amount of money. >>> tell us what you think about our programming this weekend. you can tweet at book tv >>> about a month left in 2012 many publications are putting out their year-end list of notable books. book tv will feature several of these lists focusing on the non-fiction selections. these titles were included in the "washington post" best books of 2012. ..
and the unique experience even at the pentagon and security advisor to the president. he made an early point i was familiar with based on my experience with 35 years of congress that we have all these different agencies and departments and people all over the government as well as congress that had parts of the energy package that never had a way to take a look at what should be our policy and came up with this idea the council to recommend here comeau recalled the different departments chaired by the department of energy and secretary in agencies that reach out to all the interested parties to make sure their views take consideration. but it is royal energy review. it's very different from what they do at the pentagon. with this technique but it's helpful and it will be hall posters talk about a strategy in the broader view through the quaternary old report to really get into details. and the congress of course we've got all these different committees as part of the jurisdiction. i had a simple solution. i called the two minute she -- saint pete, we need some, but not. every now and then i wo
that are not truly in defense of the country out of the pentagon and consolidate programs and save a significant amount of money. >> you can talk with oklahoma senator tom coburn about the fiscal cliff, affordable care act and the future of the republican party on booktv's index. the senator has written several books and reports including his latest, the debt bomb. join our freedom our conversation with calls, e-mails and tweets comical doctor and author and senator tom coburn at noon eastern on booktv's in depth on c-span2. >> now on booktv thomas stanton argues the difference between companies that successfully made it through the 2008 financial crisis and those that didn't was willingness of upper management to listen to feedback before making decisions. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome to the cato institute's. i'm the director of financial regulations, mark calabria and i am moderator of today's book form. when reading press coverage of a financial crisis one constantly comes across phrases like the banks did this for the banks did that. lost in these gener
savings in the pentagon i think is not a fair assessment. at simpson-bowles said and others, there are savings to be had there that would not compromise our national security. i want to also add simpson-bowles approach establish firewalls in the outer years to delay the temptation to go back into the nondefense accounts when too much political pressure keeps you out of defense spending. so i would hope that in a long-term agreement would include that. on the nondefense side, i still think there's a savings to be found. i give you a couple illustrations of those that i think might be of some value to us. first, hats off to debbie stabenow and pat roberts putting together a far build that safest $23 billion over the next 10 years. that's something that hits my state directly, but i think they did it thoughtful, bipartisan job of saving money toward deficit reduction. there are other areas where savings can be found as well. and i think that we need to look at those honestly. let me kill you, i think the infrastructure is one area where we we should consider as simpson-bowles d
to be there to gather intelligence to make sure is there another attack coming? is it coming on our pentagon? is it coming toward the white house? is it coming to that second tower so we can protect american lives? that's the difference between the law of war and common crimes. that's an important distinction that has been recognized long before, with all respect to my colleague from kentucky, in world war ii in in ray quirin, our united states supreme court in world war ii recognized this authority, the difference between the law of war. in that case, an american citizen who collaborated with the nazis was held under the law of war because our country was at war. i would also like to point out that this would only cover under the current law authorized by this congress, it would not apply to someone who is holding ammunition or someone who is paying with cash. it only applies to a person who has planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on september 11 or harbored those responsible for the attacks, or a person who has a part or has substantially supported al
in the past that it defies the pentagon and the size american debt that we're too big to fail. deadhorse lake bigger problem than us. i be interested when you're anything about policy do you look at that as a source of leverage or does it strain american options tremendous a? >> steve, very simply, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership. we need a senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so. we have a requirement to do so. at the foundation of national power is ultimately economic comment and in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundation. and we have i think the united states, both an opportunity to require it to get our house in order, and i believe that our 100 senators and members of the house will step up on this and sufficient majority in the coming months. >> how do you look at your surplus of the u.s.? does that say we have america under our control? >> we are one of the closest allies of the united states. so of course our posi
by the congressional defense committees. but like many laws, the pentagon is kind of looking around for loopholes. the air force has been pretty adept at identifying them, even if they might not actually be there. but there are some worthy amendments that i have submitted that would close the loopholes. these are contained in 10u.s.c. 993 and 10 u.s.c.2687. one of the more substantial loopholes contained in 10 u.s.c. 2687 would seem to allow the department of defense to characterize a reduction in civilian personnel as a reduction in force rather than reduction in realignment. that loophole if indeed it does exist i think needs to be closed. let me also note the difficulties we have had in obtaining from the air force information just asking for specific information has been a struggle these past several months. you ask the air force a question, and you tend to get a heavily vetted and not terribly specific answer. ask for documents explaining the deliberative process of the air force, and maybe you get one document months after you've asked for it, and again the document doesn't explain very muc
of the executive branch; i spent four years in the pentagon in the reagan administration -- they say that they have consulted and the definition of a consultation should be the secretary of state calling the chairman of the foreign relations committee or the secretary of defense calling the chairman of the armed services committee or coming over for a meeting. that is not the level of discussion and involvement that the united states congress should have when we are talking about long-term commitments with countries such as afghanistan and iraq. so this amendment is not draconian. it is very sensible. it basically says that in the situation where we have entered into this proposed relationship with afghanistan, that the key committees over here in the united states congress should have 30 days to review the documents before they are put into play. there's no great urgency in terms of when these documents are implemented, and it's the same courtesy -- actually, iter- actually, it's not even as far as what the afgha afghani parlit is going to be able to do on the other side. i commend the senator fro
am confident that the pentagon and the larger federal government can more efficiently manage its spectrum holdings and make available additional spectrum to create jobs. i hope we can work this out and have it included as part of the defense authorization bill. i certainly believe it's an amendment that's important with regard to the issue that i mentioned and that is the reallocation, relocation of spectrum in this country to allow for multiple uses, obviously important private and commercial uses out there and enormous demand, that demand is is adding significantly to our economy and creating jobs for literally thousands and millions of americans. madam president, with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent we proceed to the gillibrand amendment and that the time be 20 minutes
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)